July 14, 2011

There is no regulatory or legal framework for unpaid dating. Nothing happens during paid dates that doesn't happen in unpaid dates. From a legal perspective they should be seen as identical. No regulatory or legal framework is necessary for paid dating.

What I hope we're moving toward is a time when giving and receiving money is part of the normal give-and-take of sexual activity. It won't be what everyone does, but it will become so common that no one will think it odd, disgusting, or unusual if one adult (male or female) pays another adult (male or female) for sex. It will be seen as normal.

Brown writes from years of experience having sex with prostitutes (after forswearing sexual relationships of the unpaid kind). He gives a clear, easy-to-read, matter-of-fact, nonpornographic account of it in "Paying For It," which I read yesterday.

I'd be especially interested in talking about this subject with people who have actually read the book (and I'd appreciate it if you would use the link above to buy it). There is rich material for thinking about the legal aspects of the subject. The discussion of the difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization" at pages 191-197 is especially interesting.

We've all heard it already and we all know it's true. In any other field, what can legally be done for fun can also be legally done for money. Why is sex so different? Besides "non-paid" relationships are usually paid (as much or more), but the transaction is indirect--instead of giving her money to perform, we buy her stuff in the hopes of a performance. In that telling, prostitution is not just little different, it's more honest.

I would not be at all happy if my daughter came home and said she was going to be a prostitute. It is a hard, difficult and dangerous job that hardens one's spirit. But as a matter of public policy, I am for decriminalization and even legalization and regulation.

Having been a big fan of Brown's back in his YUMMY FUR days, I do want to read this book.

I find the idea of having sex with prostitutes--or "sex workers," if you will--of paying for intimacy with an impersonal sex clerk to be absolutely unappealing.

I think it should be legal, however.

"Some people will tell you paying for it is a sign you're not man enough to win a woman on your own."

This may be apocryphal, but one of the Rat Pack, (Dino, Sinatra, Joey Bishop, Peter Lawford, et al.), reputedly replied, when asked why they employed prostitues for sex when, with their celebrity, they could have any woman for the asking, "You're not paying for the sex; you're paying for them to go away in the morning."

I would have trouble wanting to form an emotional bond with someone who has spent his adult life paying to avoid a bond.

I don't care if prostitution is decriminalized, but I do note prostitutes seem to be the frequent targets of predators. Not sure making it socially acceptable to be a prostitute is doing the women any favors.

You're not paying for the sex; you're paying for them to go away in the morning."

You can make the same point -- and Chester Brown does -- in a less assholian way. You can say that you are paying to keep the relationship purely about sex, in an above-the-board, straightforward way that isn't about drama and possession.

He got a book out of visiting whore houses? Oscar Wilde did better. He told people about "green carnations." How you could walk along London's streets, with your wife. After dinner. And, if you wore a green carnation in your lapel buttonhole, you'd pick up a gent. For a quicky.

Here? Why would a whore waste her time having dinner with a client? What if she could earn $500 for the "flop" ... or the blow job? She's gonna give up $1,000 to go to dinner with a client?

I think he sold the gals on his story that he was "writing a book." And, they thought if they talked to him, they'd get famous. And, get to go to hollywood. Or something.

Oscar Wilde also shared with the world that whorehouses had rooms dedicated to a person's personal taste. So, yes. There where rooms where homosexuals went "to get married."

The big issue these days is the status of traditional Sexual Morality that was given to us as laws by God.

That's right, the Judeo-Christian God who won't keep quiet.

The sons of Zion can be seen in sharp contrast to the sons of Greece on that issue.

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob seems to be letting much of the world go unrestrained. He even suggests that the filthy should get more filthy. That may be His a way to separate people for Judgement.

Sex is clean and pure when done within sexual morality between husbands and wives. Or it is everything else.

I'd appreciate it if you would tell people you're whoring for Amazon and will get paid if people buy the book from the link to the book you just posted about and don't want people discussing they've bought the book.

You're a low-down linkstitute, Ann.

What's next ... a discussion of the merits of Tide detergent but we can't post comments unless we've tried it?

"I would have trouble wanting to form an emotional bond with someone who has spent his adult life paying to avoid a bond."

Chester Brown does care about relationships, including the relationships with the prostitutes. He decides that he doesn't want his sexual relationship to be more than sexual relationships. He has friends, and he makes the argument that friendships without sex are better relationships.

You're not addressing the point he is making: that paid and unpaid sex should be treated the same.

Even if all paid sex is immoral in your system of morality, some unpaid sex is also immoral. Put all that sex together and treat it the same.

There are many things that are immoral that are not criminalized. If you want to argue that everything that is immoral should be criminaliized... well, go ahead. Try. I think you'll convince no one, not even yourself.

No, my point is, I want a personal service and I don't need to cultivate a friendship with a skilled person to the point where she's ready to give me a free haircut.

When I'm there getting my haircut, my stylist will behave in a friendly way, but she's giving me something I want for myself that I will pay for and she's doing it because it's her chosen profession and she wants money.

I don't know if he originated it (doubtful), but, honestly, the first time I remember hearing it was when he used it in court years ago. I might be wrong about that and he said it outside court, but it was right around that time and had to do with what he was hauled in for.

When I'm there getting my haircut, my stylist will behave in a friendly way, but she's giving me something I want for myself that I will pay for and she's doing it because it's her chosen profession and she wants money.

The same is true of any (good) transaction involving a good or a service and money.

But that isn't what you highlighted about his argument.I have no problem saying prostitution is a lot like a financial trade for service rendered.

Obviously this is incorrect. A "paid date" is a commercial transaction in which one party exchanges money for sex. In an unpaid date there is no money changing hands and there may or may not be any sex involved.

To put it in language the left can understand, a "paid date" is activity which Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause, while unpaid dates are ... not.

"A "paid date" is a commercial transaction in which one party exchanges money for sex. In an unpaid date there is no money changing hands and there may or may not be any sex involved. To put it in language the left can understand, a "paid date" is activity which Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause, while unpaid dates are ... not."

Money is spent on dates! Dating where you don't pay for sex has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Anyway, one of Brown's prostitutes denies that she's a prostitute. She's an "escort." You're paying for her time. If she decides to have sex with you (she always does) then that is a separate matter.

Men pay for dates all the time and women who are not prostitutes like to say "He should at least buy me dinner" and so forth. So the willingness to have sex is often equalized by the man's spending some money.

I have no problem saying prostitution is a lot like a financial trade for service rendered.

Libertarians think they have played a trump card when they get that admission. They don't realize that 97% of the population thinks that not only can certain transactions be prohibited, many of them should be. And among these is prostitution.

In other news, essentailly everyone belives that bribing publc officials should be a crime, "financial trade for service rendered" be damned.

I don't think the quote about "not paying for the sex, but paying the woman to go away in the morning" is particularly assholian, but simply frank, and pragmatic. The remark was not made to the woman (or women) in question, but in response to a question as to why a celebrity would employ prostitutes.

A celebrity who engages in sex with a fan or groupie or other unfamiliar woman faces the possibility of that person becoming romantically obsessed, or of telling tales to the tabloids, or of blackmailing for hush money, or of making accusations of sexual improprieties, etc. If that celebrity pays for professional sex services, there is no misunderstanding as to the nature of the transaction: it is a purely impersonal commercial exchange, with discretion and agreement to the terms by both parties.

Maybe what we're really criminalizing when we criminalize prostitution is the trashy women (and maybe some men?) hanging out on street corners, obviously waiting for to get money in exchange for sex.

Maybe that's unfair to the women, many of whom probably have had little luck making a living in other ways. Maybe the kind of people who don't like laws against bums sitting on sidewalks would be against this, too -- "the law in its impartial majesty forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges" or whatever.

But maybe it's not so bad to outlaw this kind of trashiness, which drags down neighborhoods. Similar to having laws against littering or defacing public property (?)

In other words, we're okay with "unpaid dating" because it's more likely to follow rules of propriety -- taking people out to fancy restaurants or at least to the movies, or whatever. Maybe most of us would rather live in communities where that kind of bourgeouis behavior (or play-acting, to the cynical) occurs.

I don't consider "I want to do it" or "I find it more convenient" as being a "reason" in the sense which we base public policy on. Where is the public good in his proposal? Assuming he wants to persuade his fellow citizens of the merit of his idea and not have some jackass in a robe enact it by fiat (which is a very generous assumption on my part) he needs to explain how his suggeston benefits us all.

Even if all paid sex is immoral in your system of morality, some unpaid sex is also immoral. Put all that sex together and treat it the same.

Criminalizing immoral, unpaid sex would cause excessive legal entanglements because there are no bright lines. (Except in some cases where unpaid sex is criminalized. For example, some states have laws regarding criminal transmission of HIV. We also limit who sex partners can be. They cannot be young people, immediate family members, or animals. You can't have non-consensual sex.)

The paid part of paid sex offers a bright line that makes it enforceable.

The problem with legalizing prostitution in our current legal and political scheme is that eventually some troll is going sue that he is entitled to have sex and the taxpayer is obligated to pay for it.

There needs to be some law, and we should try to draw the lines in the right place and justify our decisions rationally.

All right then. As the person who wants to change current law, why don't you start things of by offering some rational arguments for why we should do so? The stuff you've come up with so far ( "even if all paid sex is immoral in your system of morality ..") makes it sound as if you spend way too much time around teenagers and their style of "argument" is rubbing off on you.

You want us to adapt your "system of morality", so make the case for it.

If you want to read a woman's view of this business, you should read the blog of Nightmarebrunnett, you can Google her. She is a good writer, but seems to be an emotional basket case. She speaks of fondness for some of her clients but admits that she withholds and fakes orgasm with some of them because she does not want to share that level of intimacy with them. She has written an online book called 'Coming and Crying.' She increased her price to over $1000 to reduce the number of clients she sees.

I don't get laid enough (who does?), because although I'm single, well off, and have plenty of time, I find normal dating just too much work and I'm shy, yet I never use prostitutes which I can easily afford and logistically manage.

It just isn't sexy to pay for it straight up like that. Once I was very very close with a number of prostitutes as business associates. I did date one, and since it was a non-paid relationship, it was still enjoyable. If I had to pay the same girl, it would have ruined it.

Knowing a number of highly paid escorts, I'd say they mostly deal with it just fine and end up living normal and even exciting lives, but that's at the high end, not the streetwalker level, where I'm sure it's brutal and sad.

I lived in the Philippines for two years and visited Thailand and Korea before I married my wife. I have not been tempted by American prostitutes. Not only am I happily married, but they are way too expensive, and seem to not like men very much. If the Asian girls were faking their enthusiasm, they did a good job.

Of course they were enthusiastic. They want you to take them to the "Land Of Big BX", where they move in packs and commit petty crime, just waiting for the unit to deploy so they can have even more elicit fun.

The problem with legalizing prostitution in our current legal and political scheme is that eventually some troll is going sue that he is entitled to have sex and the taxpayer is obligated to pay for it.

"Men pay for dates all the time and women who are not prostitutes like to say "He should at least buy me dinner" and so forth. So the willingness to have sex is often equalized by the man's spending some money."

This is a form of prostitution. Not illegal, but fits the technical exchange of bartering material things for sex.

Sex with two people who are hot for each other is different sex then a transactional relationship where only one person is interested in sex.

Of course, somebody could, in theory, feel lust for someone and also insist on payment.

But a transactional situation where one person is not interested in sex seems sad to me, for both parties.

Robert Cook said: Says who? If we legalized prostitution in America, we could establish our own acceptable parameters for acceptable business practices for brothels and, ahem, independent contractors alike.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the hookers of "Pretty Woman" imagery are the top .1% of the industry. The average hooker is something more like what you see on COPS. And that is so rough, so nasty, that I do not understand why they are ever patronized.

According to Brown, “Paying for sex isn’t an empty feeling if you’re paying the right person for sex.”

Well, that's nice. But I'm left wondering why I'm supposed to care even slightly about this mans feelings.

I suppose I'm expected to go along with the inane libertarian notion that "everybody should be able to do what they want as long as they don't physically hurt other people", an idea which ranks right up there with "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" in its pure childish vacuity.

Joan P. Emerson "Behavior in Private Places: Sustaining Definitions of Reality in Gynecological Examinations" deals with one precarious situation that a lot of remedial work is done in to define it as medical and not sexual.

Keri Lerum "Precarious Situations in a Strip Club" deals with the opposite one, where a pretended situation is sexual but the actual one is monetary.

I don't know of one for prostitution, but surely part of the art is a some fiction or other aimed at the man. Even a quickie isn't all that simple.

'Again, you're challenged to distinguish paid and unpaid sex. Much unpaid sex is risky healthwise and immoral, so that doesn't draw the line between paid and unpaid.'

Yes alot of 'unpaid sex' is immoral. That does not let paid sex off the hook. Bad is bad.

"The moral line should be perhaps about equality, love, and caring, but you don't criminalize all sex that doesn't meet that standard."

Not all sex Ann, just paid sex.

"The health line has to do with condoms and inspecting things and so forth, and obviously there is a lot of unpaid sex that is risky."

No, the health aspect is far more than just condoms or inspections. There is mental health to.

But even condoms are not 100 percent Ann and things like AIDs and the new super gonorrhoea bring a whole new respective to paid sex (or just promiscuity for that matter.)

All of this has been around for thousands of years (just as theft, murder, lieing, cheating, etc.. and has been outlawed from time to time. Will it stop it? No. Will it keep it down to am acceptable level? I hope so.

While unpaid sex may occur in an unhealthy situation, it's mutual in consent. Paid sex isn't mutual, one is being paid because she would never consent otherwise.

That being said, I don't see my marriage as a transaction. Financially my husband has the upper hand, but by obligation he hands over his income into one joint account. In mutual cooperation I don't take advantage of him. We share all of our resources exclusively, every act in our domestic home is for the benefit of our family. It takes trust.

The problem with legalizing prostitution in our current legal and political scheme is that eventually some troll is going sue that he is entitled to have sex and the taxpayer is obligated to pay for it.

This is a form of prostitution. Not illegal, but fits the technical exchange of bartering material things for sex.

What? Have we lost even the most basic sense of gentility?

A date is about hospitality. In the oldie form, the man asked, so just as if you ask a work client or friend out for a meal, it's courtesy to pay for them. Crude people may see it as a one to one exchange if the woman then "puts out," but the crude deserve each other.

I don't support legalizing prostitution, but it's because if we legalize it, then we have to regulate the commerce, establish "industry standards" and so on, as we would for any other business. It is so odious to have to do that just so that some guy can get off without having to worry about inconvenient things like intimacy and responsibility. Leave it illegal but unprosecuted, that's what I say.

If you're involved with taking a woman to dinner, and she puts out for it, as sort of an exchange ... she's either hungry. Or a female without much dating experience.

I learned a lot from how willingly women approached JFK. I even heard, since campaign buttons were available at that time. That some females took the largest JFK buttons they could find. And, pinned them in front of their panties. Then, they did the Can-Can.

This is one of those things in which I look at it and wonder "just whose business is it what I do or what a woman does with me". When did government become so involved in our lives? I will answer, in the 1880's the movement began as a Protestant surge to bring religion to government, it was picked up by Wilson and hence a substantial lose of freedom for the American people. As a doctor, I have seen any number of situations that would have resulted in a better situation if prostitution were legal than the system that we currently have. As to someone saying they don't want their daughter being a prostitute, well it could be worse, they could be president.

The same situation goes for drugs, when did the government get the power to tell us how to take care of our bodies and what is good or bad for us? Same time period. We should have instant access to any drug we desire. Currently I am seeign the opposite and seeing docotors who are not criminals going to jail for the act of treating patients with pain. This has to stop.

One other thing on prostitution, you don't pay for sex, you pay for the woman to leave. Besides, all women make you pay in some form.

Around 35-40 centuries ago, some wise men noted the correlation between indiscriminate sex practices and disease and early death (today we refer to theses diseases as STD's). Not knowing the cause of the diseases, these wise men did what all wise men of their era did, and attributed the cause of the disease as God's judgment against it. Monogamous sex didn't have these problems, so it was obviously pleasing to God, and the other was therefore deemed evil.

Thus was born the Abrahamic religions' obsession with both virginity and monogamy. Both have proved to be nature's safety seal.

Conversely, prostitution was acclaimed "immoral" or “sinful” because it increased the chances of disease and therefore incurring "God's judgment". The “safety seal” had been broken, many times, so to speak. And because there were no cures for these diseases, any sexual misstep at that time (and for centuries thereafter) could lead to disease, madness and an early grave. No wonder there's such an emphasis on sexually chaste behavior in the ancient texts.

The discovery of this correlation also helped reinforce the notion of God's omnipotence. Back then, like today, most sex was done in private. Yet these diseases usually only afflicted those who had multiple sex partners, typically known prostitutes and their customers. As the sexually indiscriminate were the ones getting the diseases or “being judged” (to use Biblical terminology), it meant in the minds of the people of the day that God knew everything.

In summary, the sexual morality found in the ancient texts, purporting to be God’s laws concerning human sexuality, are nothing more than a health code where the ancients framed the behaviors as “holy” vs. “sinful” instead of low risk vs. high risk (like we do today). No one in that time knew anything about germs, viruses and such, so the cause had to be God in their minds. STD’s, like ancient beliefs about earthquakes, floods, and people speaking different languages, were all, at one time in history, believed to be caused by God. The accumulation of knowledge about the world around us has led many of us to dispel these ancient notions. The supposed immorality of prostitution based on Judeo-Christian beliefs is actually just the "God of the gaps" reasoning that was standard for the day.

The only real evil in the world is the evil committed by one human against another. Prostitution fails this test and therefore is not evil or immoral. Risky? Yes. Evil? No.

One wonders (at least I do) what our sexual mores would be today if STD’s had never existed. No doubt our worship services would look a LOT different than they do today!

Around 35-40 centuries ago, some wise men noted the correlation between indiscriminate sex practices and disease and early death (today we refer to theses diseases as STD's). Not knowing the cause of the diseases, these wise men did what all wise men of their era did, and attributed the cause of the disease as God's judgment against it. Monogamous sex didn't have these problems, so it was obviously pleasing to God, and the other was therefore deemed evil.

Thus was born the Abrahamic religions' obsession with both virginity and monogamy. Both have proved to be nature's safety seal.

Conversely, prostitution was acclaimed "immoral" or “sinful” because it increased the chances of disease and therefore incurring "God's judgment". The “safety seal” had been broken, many times, so to speak. And because there were no cures for these diseases, any sexual misstep at that time (and for centuries thereafter) could lead to disease, madness and an early grave. No wonder there's such an emphasis on sexually chaste behavior in the ancient texts.

The discovery of this correlation also helped reinforce the notion of God's omnipotence. Back then, like today, most sex was done in private. Yet these diseases usually only afflicted those who had multiple sex partners, typically known prostitutes and their customers. As the sexually indiscriminate were the ones getting the diseases or “being judged” (to use Biblical terminology), it meant in the minds of the people of the day that God knew everything.

In summary, the sexual morality found in the ancient texts, purporting to be God’s laws concerning human sexuality, are nothing more than a health code where the ancients framed the behaviors as “holy” vs. “sinful” instead of low risk vs. high risk (like we do today). No one in that time knew anything about germs, viruses and such, so the cause had to be God in their minds. STD’s, like ancient beliefs about earthquakes, floods, and people speaking different languages, were all, at one time in history, believed to be caused by God. The accumulation of knowledge about the world around us has led many of us to dispel these ancient notions. The supposed immorality of prostitution based on Judeo-Christian beliefs is actually just the "God of the gaps" reasoning that was standard for the day.

The only real evil in the world is the evil committed by one human against another. Prostitution fails this test and therefore is not evil or immoral. Risky? Yes. Evil? No.

One wonders (at least I do) what our sexual mores would be today if STD’s had never existed. No doubt our worship services would look a LOT different than they do today!

The problem with making something like prostitution illegal on moral grounds is that there is no longer (if there ever was) a shared morality in the USA.

Morality is closely linked to one's religious views, but there are a wide variety of religions in the USA with a wide variety of moral codes. There are also a huge number of non believers (atheists and agnostics) with their own non religious determined moral codes.

For example, bigamy is illegal in the USA but Muslims and Mormons are fine with it.

In those countries dominated by Muslims, Sharia becomes not just a religious moral code but is the actual law that has to be followed by all the countries' citizens. This is an example of the extreme downside when laws are created based on particular religious views of morality.

Christians still dominate the USA so a lot of them are OK with laws based on Christian morality where there is no victim (such as prostitution). As an agnostic, I don't agree with everything Christians believe in and don't think the Bible is a valid basis for law making. As a libertarian, I don't want the government pushing me around unnecessarily.

In summary, laws against prostitution are wrong because there is no victim, they are based on the morality of certain religions, and permit the government to push us around by making prostitution illegal (when it should just be regulated to protect public health).

Do we really want an Amsterdam style rotisserie of prostitutes selling their wares in booths on the streets? Because that's what will happen.

Um, we HAVE prostitutes selling their wares on the streets, dude. Did you think "streetwalker" was slang for "Dutch hooker" or something?

Anyway, legal businesses have to follow zoning ordinances, and there's a long history of zoning limitations on advertising. If you can keep McDonald's from putting up a tacky plastic M sign you can keep McHookers from sticking half-naked ladies in the window. That's what Amsterdam itself does, in fact.

Fred4Pres said... I would not be at all happy if my daughter came home and said she was going to be a prostitute. It is a hard, difficult and dangerous job that hardens one's spirit. But as a matter of public policy, I am for decriminalization and even legalization and regulation.

7/14/11 11:03 AM

But let's not pretend it is some panecea or a great thing. Prostitution is a tough life even in Amsterdam, Sweeden, and Canada. But I am for less government and people should be free to make their own decisions.

But let's not pretend it is some panecea or a great thing. Prostitution is a tough life even in Amsterdam, Sweeden, and Canada.

Panacea, no. Better than it is under prohibition, yes.

But of course it is a tough life. If it wasn't, they couldn't charge three or four figures for doing something that 50% of the human race can do naturally. You can spend an hour doing something risky and emotionally unpleasant or forty hours flipping burgers in a safe and clean environment; some people are going to opt for the first option.

There you go- regulation. The government could treat prostitution like a restaurant or a hair salon and require licenses and regular inspections from the health department.It could be made a violation to engage in sex without a condom, in the name of public health. Any prostitute with a client who won't follow the law would have a good relationship with government, and could report him.

Prostitution would no longer be another form of dating. It would be superior to dating. Fantastic!

"A date is about hospitality. In the oldie form, the man asked, so just as if you ask a work client or friend out for a meal, it's courtesy to pay for them. Crude people may see it as a one to one exchange if the woman then "puts out," but the crude deserve each other."

I entirely agree. I was responding to the assertion that dating is much the same thing as prostituiton.

The expectation of a meal = sex, or an expensive trip = sex -- that is crude, and also a form of prostituiton.

Hospitality, intimacy and friendship is an entirely different thing, and filled with grace.

I think the author of this comic book brings up some interesting points about legality and illegality.

However, I think this author has failed himself. He is too damaged or scared to enter into a intimate relationship that does not allow him to "pay for it." His past relationships have failed, and he decided that paying for sex is the only intimate relationship he can handle and be happy.

Has anyone considered the impact of the so-called economic loss doctrine (ELD)on sex contracts?

The ELD limits an unsatisfied contracting party to suing the other party for breach of contract only (as opposed to suing for negligence).

But, the ELD does not apply to contracts that are for services only.

So, if two parties to a service contract have a dispute, one can sue the other in tort (i.e., for negligence). Tort claims usually give rise to broader damages than do contract claims. Under a tort claim, you can sue for NON-ECONOMIC things like pain and suffering and emotional distress. The sky is the limit for these damage items. But under a contract claim, most of the time you basically get your money back and any ECONOMIC damages like lost profits, etc.

The ELD does apply in mixed goods/services contract scenarios, IF the PRIMARY purpose of the contract is for the sale of goods.

So, in a paid sex contract situation, is the payer primarily contracting for goods or services?

Clearly, because the payer would be primarily interested in physical attributes of the sex partner, the contract is, primarily, a purchase (or rental) of a physical thing. The payer is literally paying for a piece of ass, and that is the essence of the contract.

Now, certainly, when the payer seeks certain sexual services from said piece of ass, the arrangement takes on the attributes of a mixed goods/services contract, which then requires us to characterize the contract in terms of its PRIMARY purpose.

The sex contracts under discussion here should be deemed to be primarily contracts for goods, to which the ELD applies. Any other holding would necessarily be based on the absurd proposition that it doesn't matter to the payer whether he has a tall, hot blond or a less desirable fat, ugly hag, or a Shetland pony, as the sex partner, as long as the desired services were performed.

All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that, armed with the ELD, sex workers could improperly withhold or limit their services with relative impunity, being liable only to refund the, ahem, unsatisfied payer's money. The poor bastard could be emotionally scarred; too bad, says the ELD.

Unsuspecting sex payers would get screwed because they didn't get screwed. Why should the sex payer have to get hosed by the flaccid remedy the ELD affords?

"Around 35-40 centuries ago, some wise men noted the correlation between indiscriminate sex practices and disease and early death (today we refer to theses diseases as STD's). Not knowing the cause of the diseases, these wise men did what all wise men of their era did, and attributed the cause of the disease as God's judgment against it. Monogamous sex didn't have these problems, so it was obviously pleasing to God, and the other was therefore deemed evil.

"Thus was born the Abrahamic religions' obsession with both virginity and monogamy."

Your short history may or may not have much truth in it--I honestly don't know--but I would suggest that guaranteeing paternity probably had as much or more to do with cultural sexual mores encouraging monogamy or chastity than did any intentions of stemmming disease. (No man wanted to expend resources raising children who were not his.) After all, such cultural norms of monogamous, marital sex as may have existed--was it really as common as we assume?--really was applied more rigorously to the ladies than to the men...thus undoing any preventative benefits of the supposed monogamous norms.

When I was in the service, a fair number of pros and semipros hung around the bars servicemen frequented. It is mistaken to claim that a paid relationship is devoid of feeling. It is very difficult for a young man to have sex with an attractive woman without falling for her, at least for a while. I had two friends who married prostitutes. The Galahad complex. They were going to bring joy and love to that poor girl's beleagured life, and they would live happily ever after because that's what happened when people love each other. I don't know the final resolution, but one guy formed a sane relationship and went back to the states with the girl. The other one ended in tears and squalor.

"Of course, somebody could, in theory, feel lust for someone and also insist on payment."

That's always been my practice. I insist upon payment regardless of circumstances or relationship. I find that women - especially professional women - readily adapt to this requirement as soon as they understand that the policy is "no freebies, ever". If you want it you pay for it.

"There needs to be some law, and we should try to draw the lines in the right place and justify our decisions rationally."

True. And every rational decision admixes irrational components, unavoidably and "unexpectedly." And that phenomenon compounded with the phenomenon of self-awareness (reflexive consciousness) generates the subject of morality. Animals are spared that struggle.

Also, lines, legal and otherwise, share with fixed fortresses the quality of impermanence, or, in the fine old phrase, corruptibility (subject to dismemberment, being undone).

The world is created anew each moment or it disappears. Life breathes or dies. Prostitution is a financial activity but not an economical one. It does not produce life. For this reason it will never be considered comparable to, much less compatible with, economical activity (= building up and out). Prostitution is a cipher, like homosexuality and psychotropic drugs. An hollow egg. Plenty of individuals like hollow eggs, but that does not make them or their eggs seminal or economical.

Let's consider the preliminary results from the ongoing experiment in America's Black community.

The highest number of single parent households.The highest number of multiple women impregnated by a single man.The highest number of aborted human lives.

Of course, this is just anecdotal evidence; and, most important, it is society (i.e., taxpayers) that pays the fees of both the prostitute (i.e., "mother") and raising (or sacrificing) the children following the "date".

So, let's deny the natural order (e.g., procreation) and let's also deny the enlightened order (i.e., individual dignity). It is clear that instant gratification trumps both. And why not, when we have been so progressive in our efforts to normalize involuntary exploitation and denigration of individual dignity. Surely the devaluation of human life and the diminishing fitness of our species (at least the beings with "Western" morals and outlook) is of little consequence.

In any case, it seems prudent to at least conduct a feasibility study before we normalize what has been known to be a deviant behavior with negative outcomes for all individuals involved and for society in general.

"Slavery is just a form of exploitation" following the demonstration of economic and societal benefit derived from its utility.

This is only incidentally related, but why has our society rejected slavery as a legitimate economic institution? Is it just consideration for involuntary exploitation or its combination with a loss of liberty that causes normal people to recoil in horror?

If consent was actually an issue of merit, then abortion (the violent destruction of human life when it is most vulnerable) would similarly cause normal people to recoil in horror. Yet, in progressive measure, it does not.

I imagine there are other principles and concerns involved.

As with slavery and abortion, the normalization of behaviors known to be unproductive (if only anecdotal) should entail a feasibility study.

This guy is a moron who can't pick up women. The man ain't got no game.

timmaguire42,

It's not a very original argument.

We've all heard it already and we all know it's true. In any other field, what can legally be done for fun can also be legally done for money. Why is sex so different? Besides "non-paid" relationships are usually paid (as much or more), but the transaction is indirect--instead of giving her money to perform, we buy her stuff in the hopes of a performance. In that telling, prostitution is not just little different, it's more honest.

Of course, somebody could, in theory, feel lust for someone and also insist on payment.

Certainly. Consider the ancient Romans' attitude in these matters. As Paul Veyne writes in his chapter “The Roman Empire” in Volume I of A History of Private Life:

The social and institutional character of the Roman economy was so different from that of our own that it is tempting to call it archaic. It sustained, nevertheless, a high level of production and was as dynamic and ruthless as capitalism. For, if Roman aristocrats distinguished themselves by their culture and their interest in philosophy, they were still avid for profit.

The greatest nobles talked business. Pliny, a senator, in letters intended to be specimens of the finest in the genre, held up his behavior as a wealthy landlord as an example for others to follow. When a noble wished to get rid of old furniture or building materials, he held a public auction. (Auctions were the normal way for private individuals to sell their used belongings; the emperors themselves auctioned off unwanted palace furniture.)

Money was not supposed to lie idle. Even loans to friends and relatives earned interest (not charging interest on such loans was considered a mark of special virtue). A woman's father had to pay interest to her husband if transfer of her dowry was delayed.

Usury was a part of daily life; modern anti-Semites might have made ancient Rome the object of their obsession instead of the Jews. In Rome commerce and money-lending were not left exclusively to professionals or to any one class of society. Any toil, no matter how pleasurable, merited payment.

One picturesque aspect of amorous customs among the Romans was that the female partner in a high-society affair was paid for her trouble. A matron who deceived her husband received a large sum or, in some cases, an annual income from her lover. Some cads reclaimed these gifts when affairs were broken off, and on occasion the courts became involved.

The practice of accepting gifts from lovers was considered not prostitution but work for hire. The woman did not give herself because she was paid, the jurists held; she was rewarded for giving herself of her own free will. She who loved best was most handsomely paid. Women sought the wages of adultery as eagerly as men sought dowries.

In a system where you have to do 40+ hours of work in 35, there's hardly ever what you want to buy available, you almost have to stay in your social/economic class, and half of your pay goes to somebody else's medical care so you can't really buy anything when you travel - is that the paradise implied here?

The problem with making something like prostitution illegal on moral grounds ...

All laws are made on "moral grounds". It takes a certain type of person to notice that a particular law which they dislike is based on moral grounds and exclaim "Ah ha!"

The zoning laws in whatever neighborhood you live in are based on moral grounds.

Morality is closely linked to one's religious views, but there are a wide variety of religions in the USA with a wide variety of moral codes

Which one of these "moral codes" thinks that prostitution should be legalized? I don't think that "progressivism" counts as a moral code.

As a libertarian, I don't want the government pushing me around unnecessarily.

Expecting you to be able to get a girlfriend without buying one hardly constitutes pushing you around. As an ideal, libertarians should be rugged individualists. Why is it that in practice they tend to be unhappy asocial losers who spend their time nursing a sense of grievance against the world?

Christians still dominate the USA so a lot of them are OK with laws based on Christian morality

Is this whole "Hooray for gay marriage and prostitution" business on the part of agnostic ex-Jews really just about sticking your thumb in the Christians eye? Because that is (a) petty (b) malicious and (c) dumb.

Tone down the anti-Christian sentiment if you want to persuade people.

When I was in high school, my best friend and I both screwed 3 girls apiece, at his house, over a bet who could get the most. No money changed hands.

Two women once took me home because I was "nice." No money changed hands.

One tall amazonian blonde took me home with the words, "You'll do." No money changed hands.

One lady FUCKED THE SHIT OUT OF ME because she liked the way I danced.

I once looked up and there were 5 women in my apartment, doing the dishes/laundry, etc., with one in my room waiting to blow me. No money changed hands, and I was more concerned with finishing a sculpture.

And I once went over to a friend's house, only to find a woman down on her knees, scrubbing his tile floor with a toothbrush. I asked him what was up and he said, "She won't go home." We retired to his room, smoked a joint, and laughed.

This author ain't got no game.

And - I might add - the one time I didn't treat a woman as I knew I should've - when I loved her and treated her as an intimate and an equal - it blew up in my face.

Given all the various demands fulfilled within the universe of prostitutes (and all the risk-costs associated with so many of those demands), I'm hard put to believe that it's impossible to find suppliers of not-shaved crotches if the price is right.

Perhaps the issue is not the lack of willingness to go unshaven, dear Peter, but rather your not willing to render fair trade (otherwise known as "asking price") for access to that state which you seem to think is not just rare, but a privilege to which you're denied access.

Job descriptions that include sex as part of the expected tasks could take advantage of women who need the job, but then would not be able to deny the sex, because that is an expected job function for that particular position.

http://patterico.com/2011/06/22/in-which-i-clear-up-some-misconceptions-on-sexual-harassment%E2%80%A6/#more-60597****And let me back up and highlight something about that relationship between quid pro quo sexual harassment and prostitution. This is also one of the better arguments against legalizing prostitution (besides my deep moral objections to the practice): because otherwise it would be impossible to outlaw quid pro quo harassment. As I just said, if a male boss says to a female employee, “sleep with me or you’re fired,” then what he is really proposing is to change a person’s job description to include prostitution.” And if prostitution is legal, then how can there be anything wrong with that?

The libertarians of the world who wish to legalize prostitution like to say, “as long as it is consensual and between adults, what’s the problem?” Well, the problem is that it won’t all be consensual. Too often it will the creepy boss telling a subordinate “sleep with me or you’re fired” and while it might not be coercion as the term is defined in the law, too many women will feel they have no choice. And that is unlibertarian.****

If you are looking for how to find a boyfriend just visit us and know about the tacts and ways to know how to find a boyfriend and how to satisfy your soulmate. You can find dating tips articles alongwith tips on how to find a boyfriend. Here you can know how to get him and how to make him happy with you and to keep him with you in a long term relation of pleasure.To find a boyfriend

Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada. And Rhode Island legalized it once as well. STDs and rapes actually dropped as a result of prostitution. Despite being illegal in most states backpages is filled with prostitution ads that have been unregulated by the government. Prostitution is also legal in many parts of Europe. Such as Germany, Spain and Denmark.